Corbett: No SNAFUs on Election Day because of #VoterID.

Gov. Tom Corbett said this week that he's not expecting any "snafus" on Election Day because of
Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification law -- which is the subject of a state Supreme Court hearing on Thursday.

"Here's the question: I keep hearing 'snafus' Let me see your driver's license;' That's what it is," Corbett told reporters after an appearance in Lebanon County on Monday. "It's 'Do you have photo ID?' Either you come in, you sign in, I'm basing it upon my ward, my polling place. I sign a sheet of paper. The only thing I'm going to do different is show them a photo ID.

"So I see no reason for a snafu there," Corbett said after being asked whether the Department of State was ready to implement the law requiring people to show photo identification every time they vote.

"They're going to look at the photo ID, look at my face and go "Ok". Now, I can tell you they all know me in my ward. But in a lot of areas they wouldn't," he concluded.

Opponents of the law say it's not that simple, charging that those with long-expired IDs or, for instance, married women whose names on voter rolls and their ID cards don't match, could be turned away.

"There's still a lot of misunderstanding on what constitutes a proper form of identification," state Rep. Robert Freeman, D-Northampton, said. "There's a much narrower scope than people think there is."

The state has done its part to educate voters on the requirements of Pennsylvania's new voter identification law, now it's up to counties to finish the job, Corbett said."We are going through the education process right now," he said.

Getting things right on the ground on Nov. 6 "is up to the counties to make sure they do it right with workers at the polling places," he said. "We're educating voters that they have the right to vote, but they have to have a photo ID and they have to be registered to vote. We still want people to get registered."

Opponents of the law have predicted widespread confusion at the polls on Nov. 6 as a result of people showing up with the wrong form of ID. They've also said they fear that the law could result in tens of thousands of voters being disenfranchised.

In Lehigh County, elections officials are planning to hold "two classes a day, sometimes three" starting Oct. 1 and running through the end of the month to make sure poll workers know what's required of them under the new law, Elections Director Timothy Benyo said this afternoon.

Despite criticism from some corners in the way the state has implemented the new law, Benyo said his office was "given what we need to fulfill our requirements" on Nov. 6.

Supporters of the law have argued that no one will be barred from voting on Election Day and that those without the proper forms of identification will be allowed to cast provisional ballots. Those ballots will only count if the people casting them return to county elections offices within six days to prove their identity.

Under the law, several forms of ID, which must have an expiration date, are permissible for voting. They include state-issued drivers' and non-driver photo ID from the Department of Transporation; student identification cards, military identification cards and identification cards issued by personal care homes.

Government and municipal employees can also use their work ID cards to vote and the Department of State last month began issuing what it calls "voting-only" ID cards through PennDOT.

The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday in Philadelphia on the constitutionality of the new law, which was upheld in August by Commonwealth Court Judge Robin Simpson. On Monday, Corbett said Simpson's decision was "a very well-reasoned, thought-out opinion."

"The vast majority of Pensylvanians want this bill," Corbett said, adding that Simpson had outlined the "legal reasons why this bill is constitutional."

Asked about the siginificance of a 3-3 decision from a court evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Corbett said he hopes that when the high court justices "review [the law], they should make their determination not on what party they're registered with, but as to the constitutionality of the bill under the PA constitution."

A deadlock on the high court would result in it being upheld. It would take a majority of jiustices to overturn it.

"I think the justices can have differences of opinion," he said. "And it comes from a philosophy of where they come from."

Asked whether the high court's decision would serve as a national barometer, Corbett resoponded that "every state is different. Look at Indiana, Our law very closely follows the Indiana law, which has already been found constitutional by the Indiana courts

"So ours is very close to that. That's one of the reasons why Judge Simpson took a look at it and found it constitutional,": he said. "You can't compare us to somwhere like Texas that's under, really, a different law ... so each state has their own ways of imposing their requirements and ours is imposed by the Legislature. I signed it. And I think the vast majority of the people believe in it."